Homosexuals: Genetically and Spiritually Superior?

The immediate answer to the question of what is the purpose of sex would be procreation - to continue the species. Of course, this would be correct, and it is why sex is an immensely pleasurable experience for both men and women - to encourage procreation. However, the idea that homosexuality is ‘wrong’ because homosexuals don’t or can’t procreate is unsound – not to mention for the reason that homosexuals possess the right ‘equipment’ necessary for procreation – but since they only make up a small percentage of the population, there is no danger of the species becoming extinct due to homosexuality. Furthermore, almost everyone possesses a libido, and for some it is incredibly powerful and consuming that it is satisfied. Some even say that sexual energy is the greatest driving force of humans. The clitoris of a woman is an organ there solely for pleasure via sexual stimulation. For humans, either by design of God or nature, sex must also be for pleasure as well as procreation.

The male and female anatonomy are complimentary, the erectile tissue and the glans of the male penis serves the same function as the female clitoris - they are equivalent organs. The pleasurable aspect of sex is down to the stimulation of these organs. It cannot be true that sex is pleasurable purely for the sake of procreation since not all sexual pleasure is derived from penetration. Mutual masturbation and oral sex is common between couples, both heterosexual and homosexual, for instance.

Procreation in humans happens in such a way that pleasure is given to both man and woman through the genital stimulation that occurs as a consequence from penetration - the actual act of penetration is incidental to the pleasure recieved. By the nature of the sperm and of our reproductive systems, penetrative sex is necessary for procreation - semen cannot be ejaculated and later placed inside the woman. Natural impregnation necessitates ejaculation into the woman from the man via penetration thereby both the man and the woman recieve incidental pleasure.

Both man and woman are therefore designed anatonomically and biologically to have sex for pleasure. That the pleasures of sex derive from genital stimulation and not necessarily vaginal penetration alone, means that there is nothing unnatural about homosexual relations per se. Homosexual acts are, therefore, as pleasurable and as biologically and anatomically valid as heterosexual acts.

However, the anus is not a genital organ. The anus is not a vagina. Anal sex has been outlawed and condemned throughout history since it is a psuedo-sexual act as the anus is used as a proxy-vagina. It is also passive and effeminate, it makes one man a 'bitch' - a pseudo-woman. Homosexuals who engage in anal sex are actually engaging in a form of psuedo-heterosex. Gays have made it the common conception that to be gay you must have anal sex - this is wrong and confusing - many homosexuals don't like anal sex and won't go near it.

Anal sex was outlawed because it debases masculinity, the preferred method of same-sex love in Greece (and other cultures) was to rub penises together and, whilst facing each other, rubbing the penis in the inner thighs - frottage or frot. Homosexual acts in nature and other animals are well recorded, but they are most commonly a form of frot, NOT anal sex.

Homosexuality does not feminize men – the opposite is the case. Homosexuality is about the love of manliness and masculinity; it is only love for the feminine that can feminize men. Who is the most masculine, but a man who by virtue of his love of manliness – also loves the soul and beauty of men?

A mutual love of manliness can join men as warriors in a sacred bond of love and friendship, and of ultra-masculinity, and of unity and equality that only lovers may share, this being necessary for an efficient and strong-willed military unit – a brotherhood of masculinity with a warrior’s creed and with high morale like the Sacred Band of Thebes, or even Ernst Röhm's Sturmabteilung. Their fighting and warrior spirit is emphasised through their mutual love and friendship that also inspires courage and bravery of the warrior ethos. Lovers who fight by each other’s side will most brilliantly serve their nation and race as they would surely fight and die for their beloved as they share such a unique and strong lifelong bond.

Moreover, that sex is merely for procreation is a purely a materialistic view that also neglects the importance of culture in human societies. Since they are not restrained by the same demands of procreation and family pressures that heterosexuals are, they are more able to devote themselves to pursuing intelligence, art and culture. One can make note of many geniuses that never begat children or ‘bothered’ with family life, and the many great artists who were or have been reputed to have been homosexual or bisexual such as: Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Caravaggio, Jean-Baptiste Lully, Beethoven, Chopin, Lord Byron, Oscar Wilde, Marcel Proust and so on. Homosexuals whilst a small group of any population have greatly shaped all great cultures and civilizations. Same-sex lovers are more inclined to art, culture and genius.

Both genius and homosexuality are produced only in small numbers in any population, and homosexuals/bisexuals are freer to develop their genius and propagate culture – whereas purely heterosexuals propagate the race. Love should be viewed in a more transcendent way, an appreciation of beauty in a more abstract way with no problems if the source of the beauty is from the male or the female – love without obligation of the material, but also without fear of the material.

The immediate answer to the question of what is the purpose of sex would be procreation - to continue the species. Of course, this would be correct, and it is why sex is an immensely pleasurable experience for both men and women - to encourage procreation.

I believe sex isn't pleasurable for most animals.

Quote

It cannot be true that sex is pleasurable purely for the sake of procreation since not all sexual pleasure is derived from penetration.

The fact that I can kill a man by striking him over the head with a shovel doesn't mean the shovel was invented for that reason.

Quote

That the pleasures of sex derive from genital stimulation and not necessarily vaginal penetration alone, means that there is nothing unnatural about homosexual relations per se.

Again, humans are able to use things in innovative ways, and when nature makes something it doesn't safeguard it so that it can only be used in a very rigid context.

Quote

Moreover, that sex is merely for procreation is a purely a materialistic view that also neglects the importance of culture in human societies.

Nevertheless, from the perspective of survival of the fittest ultimately sex - along with every single thing else - has exclusively to do with procreation, since the capacity for reproduction is the ultimate determinant of 'fitness'.

Quote

Both genius and homosexuality are produced only in small numbers in any population, and homosexuals/bisexuals are freer to develop their genius and propagate culture – whereas purely heterosexuals propagate the race.

In all fairness nobody's forced to have children, plus homosexuals are able to adopt a child.

Sex doesn't have a purpose. It is the way it is because its the best way of allowing genetic diversity and allowing successful genes to propagate.

Regardless, most higher-functioning animals have sex for pleasure, such as bonobos and dolphins.

Quote

The fact that I can kill a man by striking him over the head with a shovel doesn't mean the shovel was invented for that reason.

No, but it still works for that reason! Chopsticks weren't invented for sushi, but you can still eat sushi with them!

Quote

Again, humans are able to use things in innovative ways, and when nature makes something it doesn't safeguard it so that it can only be used in a very rigid context.

I don't think this is really a disagreement with his statement.

Quote

Nevertheless, from the perspective of survival of the fittest ultimately sex - along with every single thing else - has exclusively to do with procreation, since the capacity for reproduction is the ultimate determinant of 'fitness'.

Not necessarily. Populations evolve, not individuals. For example, most ants will not reproduce, yet they're a highly successful form of life.

Sex doesn't have a purpose. It is the way it is because its the best way of allowing genetic diversity and allowing successful genes to propagate.

Hmmmm, I never claimed sex has a purpose. I was specifically saying as you say that it's for survival of the fittest, for genetic diversity and propagation of the species.

Quote

Regardless, most higher-functioning animals have sex for pleasure, such as bonobos and dolphins.

Yes that's what I've heard, but the vast majority of animals don't have sex for pleasure.

Quote

Quote

The fact that I can kill a man by striking him over the head with a shovel doesn't mean the shovel was invented for that reason.

No, but it still works for that reason! Chopsticks weren't invented for sushi, but you can still eat sushi with them!

All I'm saying is that the fact that one can eat chopsticks with suchi doesn't necessarily imply that chopsticks were designed specifically for that use (perhaps among other uses as well). So we're in perfect agreement.

Quote

Quote

Again, humans are able to use things in innovative ways, and when nature makes something it doesn't safeguard it so that it can only be used in a very rigid context.

I don't think this is really a disagreement with his statement.

He's saying that since sex can be pleasurable in ways that doesn't involve actual penetration and reproduction, therefore sex must exist in some natural, original sense for reasons beyond just reproduction. I'm saying that if we have organs that can give pleasurable sensation in one way, it's perfectly possible to also get pleasure out of them other ways but that doesn't mean they were necessarily designed for that purpose from a biological point of view.

Quote

Quote

Nevertheless, from the perspective of survival of the fittest ultimately sex - along with every single thing else - has exclusively to do with procreation, since the capacity for reproduction is the ultimate determinant of 'fitness'.

Not necessarily. Populations evolve, not individuals. For example, most ants will not reproduce, yet they're a highly successful form of life.

I said ultimately sex and everything else has to do with procreation, since the capacity for reproduction is the ultimate determinant of 'fitness'. I agree that it's a very complex and and subtle equation involving variables such as populations as a whole.

Yes that's what I've heard, but the vast majority of animals don't have sex for pleasure.

I keep seeing this opinion come up in various places and I've never been able to understand why anyone would adhere to it. What possible motive would animals have to reproduce if it didn't provide them with an immediate reward? We're talking about beings that lack the foresight to understand on a conscious level that what they're doing is the same thing that allows them to survive. They do it just because. The vast majority aren't even capable of understanding that their offspring are related to them. Even humans, the most cognitively developed species we know of, still possesses (and possibly requires) the impetus of pleasure as a means to ensure its continuation. Any species with lower cognitive development would require the same, if not even more. To say that it's not pleasurable because they don't fuck 24/7 would be retarded - most beings don't go through their reproductive cycles as quickly as we do, so their desire to seek sex out most likely simply wanes as it becomes less useful. It must be pleasurable, in some way, during the period they seek it out, because if it weren't pleasurable they wouldn't seek it - this seems so self-evident to me that it could qualify as a tautology. Or maybe I'm the one missing something dreadfully obvious?

It's not out of pursuit of pleasure, but due to instinct. Animals, for the mostpart, don't think, they simply act. I remember it being proven without doubt that there was no pleasure involved in sex for the majority of animals.

It's not out of pursuit of pleasure, but due to instinct. Animals, for the mostpart, don't think, they simply act. I remember it being proven without doubt that there was no pleasure involved in sex for the majority of animals.

Of course they didn't enjoy having sex with you. What's wrong with you ffs?

It's not out of pursuit of pleasure, but due to instinct. Animals, for the mostpart, don't think, they simply act. I remember it being proven without doubt that there was no pleasure involved in sex for the majority of animals.

Of course they didn't enjoy having sex with you. What's wrong with you ffs?

ScienceDaily (June 18, 2008) — Swedish researchers have found that some physical attributes of the homosexual brain resemble those found in the opposite sex, according to an article published online (June 16) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Some psychological tests have shown differences between men and women in the extent to which they employ the brain’s hemispheres in verbal tasks. Other research has hinted that homosexuals may exhibit the tendencies of the opposite sex in brain behavior unrelated to sexual activity.[...]Positron emission tomography (PET) scans taken by the researchers also show that in connectivity of the amygdala (which is important for emotional learning), lesbians resemble straight men, and gay men resemble straight women.

If this feminized brain structure were "superior", in history and recent time why aren't there female or homosexual male scientists, scholars and warriors all across the board?

"Superiority" is the wrong term to use because the dimorphic brain structures of straight males and females obviously serve more niche'd purposes.

One can make note of many geniuses that never begat children or ‘bothered’ with family life, and the many great artists who were or have been reputed to have been homosexual or bisexual such as: Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Caravaggio, Jean-Baptiste Lully, Beethoven, Chopin, Lord Byron, Oscar Wilde, Marcel Proust and so on.

I'm not picking sides, just pointing out that he already answered your question. I'm interested to see how his statement will be rebunked. Mind you that since homosexuality has been heavily tabooed in the western world for 2000 years (because of christianity) there might be tons of historically important closet fags out there. But hey this should help: maybe it was because of the pressure they were under because of possible persecution that they tried to make themselves valuable in other ways. Maybe if homosexuality was encouraged then they would have all ended as some drunken sailors lovebird instead of geniuses. We'll never know any of these things for sure will we?

So here's another way of looking at it: what has homosexuality done for mankind? Not homos, but homosexuality itself...?

Moreover, that sex is merely for procreation is a purely a materialistic view that also neglects the importance of culture in human societies. Since they are not restrained by the same demands of procreation and family pressures that heterosexuals are, they are more able to devote themselves to pursuing intelligence, art and culture. One can make note of many geniuses that never begat children or ‘bothered’ with family life, and the many great artists who were or have been reputed to have been homosexual or bisexual such as: Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Caravaggio, Jean-Baptiste Lully, Beethoven, Chopin, Lord Byron, Oscar Wilde, Marcel Proust and so on. Homosexuals whilst a small group of any population have greatly shaped all great cultures and civilizations. Same-sex lovers are more inclined to art, culture and genius.

Wait a second, all of the other figures were certainly homosexual or bisexual, but I've never heard of Beethoven being so. Where's the proof?